You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective. To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me: Add me / Remove me

2
posted on 04/02/2007 7:11:48 PM PDT
by DaveLoneRanger
(As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)

Rule Number 1: Never question the orthodoxy required of the methodological naturalist's cloaked assumptions regarding history. Otherwise you are simply “unscientific” and thereby unworthy of commentary.

Either of these possibilities shows that the "young earth" and "creation some 6000 years ago" ideas are wrong.

They contradict your own theory, that's about it. It does not disprove or prove young-earth either way.

And even if both of these possibilities were subsequently shown to be wrong, that doesn't make your particular religious belief true.

By itself, this point does not further creationism a whole lot. It's just another two-pence tossed into the vault of evidence turned sour for evolutionists.

Why don't you try to visit your college library, and really look at a few dozen or a few hundred of the technical journals dealing with evolution.

Some time I should share with you some of the recent materials I have been perusing from scientific journals the past few months while the crevo wars here have been quiet.

You are not getting a straight story from AnswersinGenesis.

Did I detect a subtle twitch when you said that? Coyote, listen to me. This has nothing to do with Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham didn't call me up and ask me to post this story, I didn't get any marching orders from Kent Hovind. (Well, he did ask me to help him break out of jail, but that's another story.) AiG may not even be aware of this story yet.

Bringing them into this as a personal attack against me hints at a psychological obsession.

22
posted on 04/02/2007 8:18:21 PM PDT
by DaveLoneRanger
(As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)

The "out of Africa" hypothesis proposes that all humans alive today are descended from a small group of sub- Saharan Africans who made their way out of the continent about 60,000 years ago.

What's that again about a small group of individuals couldn't possibly contain enough genetic variety to result in a healthy population? Something about all the people in the world couldn't have come from Noah and his sons? I guess that's only a problem if you believe in creation. If you believe in evolution, it's perfectly reasonable. Yeah, right....

25
posted on 04/02/2007 8:32:46 PM PDT
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

Either of these possibilities shows that the "young earth" and "creation some 6000 years ago" ideas are wrong.

They contradict your own theory, that's about it. It does not disprove or prove young-earth either way.

My theory? Debating the out-of-Africa theory (160,000 years ago) vs. the more recent China data (multiregional, probably both 160,000 and 40,000 years ago) does not contradict a 6000 years ago earth? You really need to read some science. Two different theories of out-of-Africa migration, both of which deal with hundreds of thousands of years of time don't contraindicate a 6000 year old earth?

And even if both of these possibilities were subsequently shown to be wrong, that doesn't make your particular religious belief true.

By itself, this point does not further creationism a whole lot. It's just another two-pence tossed into the vault of evidence turned sour for evolutionists.

It doesn't further YEC creationism at all. It contradicts it.

Why don't you try to visit your college library, and really look at a few dozen or a few hundred of the technical journals dealing with evolution.

Some time I should share with you some of the recent materials I have been perusing from scientific journals the past few months while the crevo wars here have been quiet.

You are cruising the internet looking for articles which, in your limited understanding, may serve to cast some doubt--any doubt--on evolution. That does not amount to an understanding of science.

You are not getting a straight story from AnswersinGenesis.

Did I detect a subtle twitch when you said that? Coyote, listen to me. This has nothing to do with Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham didn't call me up and ask me to post this story, I didn't get any marching orders from Kent Hovind. (Well, he did ask me to help him break out of jail, but that's another story.) AiG may not even be aware of this story yet. Bringing them into this as a personal attack against me hints at a psychological obsession.

Not interested in Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. They don't post here. You do. And you post anti-science nonsense, which you have admitted you get from AnswersinGenesis. And you have admitted you are doing apologetics (defense of religion), not science.

Post in the Religion Forum and you won't get any challenges from me as long as what you are posting is religious belief and does not pretend to be science. That's where you and I tangle. (Note tagline.)

Why does a skeleton from 40,000 years ago, 20,000 years after our ancestors supposedly left Africa negate that hypothesis, which does not claim that they were the only “humans” around? The fact that some of those people mated with other slightly less-advanced people they encountered is hardly surprising.

Let’s give it a try. It’s all “science,” right? If I remember from school, “the past is the key to the future.” Forgive me for putting words into your mouth, but I suspect your own position would be that a pencil, if dropped tomorrow, would “fall down.” I suspect that your answer would be the same if it happened next week. In fact, your answer probably would be the same regardless of the time it happened (assuming, of course, we’re on earth and not in space).

Have I got it right? Or, have I messed up? Is it possible that you think a pencil could fall UP rather than down? Thanks for humoring me.
lol

One thing is certain in the theory of evolution esp to the part as man sprang from some sort of apelike creature.

And that is, no matter how times it is turned over with more elegant ideas, evidence discarded, re-dated, time spans altered, origins changed or added, etc etc, a few things will remain the same with it.

And that will be evo talking MAN is from ape, he is ape! that only gets more certain with every turn of the spade!

But seriously, it looks like we may be in fact headed toward a culture/govt that looks toward that way.

I see you didn’t list religion as one of your expert fields. That means you don’t see or know the BIG picture. But that has been recognized by many on this site as looking thru the wrong end of the telescope.

When you're dealing with rubber science the drain tends to get plugged up.

I'm surprised the editor didn't prefix a "Darwin proved true" to the headline. Any evidence, whether it supports, refutes, or is irrelevant to darwinism merits one. But then this isn't the NYT.

So now it's out of china. If this "out of china" movement gets hold (again) maybe we'll see some "out of africa" fossils exposed as fakes by the "out of china" crowd. And vice versa. Btw what ever happened to 300,000 year-old (ha ha) Peking Man anyway, and how does that fit into this timeline?

Various parties have tried to locate the fossils but, so far, without result. In 1972, a US financier Christopher Janus promised a $5,000 (U.S.) reward for the missing skulls; one woman contacted him, asking for $500,000 (U.S.) but she later vanished. In July 2005, the Chinese government founded a committee to find the bones to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. There are also various theories of what might have happened, including a theory that the bones had sunk with a Japanese ship Awa Maru in 1945.

When it comes to the subject of evolution of the species on Earth we can’t ignore what honest science is revealing. I’ve read dozens of technical articles myself on this subject, especially as it relates DNA studies with evolution. And as a result I’ve developed some opinions. One thing I find on DNA studies that makes them so reliable is that it’s so mathematical/objective rather than subjective like so many of the “soft” sciences are. In many ways DNA results and their implications remind me of the Theory of Addition. Don’t be hardhearted or else you’ll spend your life being blindsighted.

Hint: The Theory of Addition is that if 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 then 1+3=4. Most honest scientists who have tested this theory have come to the conclusion that it’s a solid one. That’s why we teach this Theory of Addition in the schools. So if your iman tells you that the Koran says that 1+3=5 then I think your iman is most likely mistaken.

“Thats why we teach this Theory of Addition in the schools. So if your iman tells you that the Koran says that 1+3=5 then I think your iman is most likely mistaken.”

1 - I don’t have an imam or iman.

2 - your analogy is insultingly oversimplified. DNA is extremely complex and a recent study indicated that there may be a lot more to DNA than scientists first thought. That the simple mapping was only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

IMO, its quite egotistical and shows severe lack of wisdom to think everything in the universe can be explained. Theres nothing wrong with science but its worship is misguided.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.